Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_488966959-scaled

GOP lawmakers move to expose foreign money in US think tanks

To root out outside influence of our foreign policy, a new bill would make make certain disclosures mandatory for first time.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

New legislation introduced by three Republican members of Congress would set a new bar for transparency in funding from think tanks receiving foreign funding. The legislation — “Think Tank and Nonprofit Influence Disclosure Act of 2021” — aims to “root out foreign funding behind America’s policy research institutions” by requiring disclosure of foreign governments and foreign political parties that contribute in excess $50,000 per year to think tanks.

The requirement for think tanks to disclose their foreign sources of funding is particularly focused on revealing the extent of Chinese government-linked funding of think tanks, but the bills sponsors — Reps. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) — emphasized that the extent of foreign influence in U.S. think tanks is a far reaching problem. 

“Experts believe there are numerous foreign governments backing American think tanks and nonprofits, and that the Chinese Communist Party and Russian government are among those who seek to influence U.S. policymakers in this way,” said a press release from Gooden’s office.

The Republican bill closely closely reflects the policy recommendations in last year’s report by Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which found that $174 million in foreign funding went to top U.S. think tanks between 2014 and 2018, and advised that  “think tanks should be required, by law, to publicly disclose funding from foreign powers.”

A Responsible Statecraft and American Prospect investigation in January found that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Wilson is a member, was regularly briefed by experts affiliated with think tanks that refuse to provide transparency into their funding sources. 

Of the 237 think tank–affiliated witnesses who spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the past two congresses, under 30 percent of them appeared on behalf of institutions that fully disclose their major donors. 


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(shutterstock/ Kenishirotie)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.